CAR_Public/061019.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 19, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 208

                            Headlines

ABLE LABORATORIES: Files Motion to Dismiss N.J. Securities Suit
BIO-TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Face N.J. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CRACKER BARREL: Could Face Another Racial Discrimination Suit
CHINA ENERGY: Faces Securities Suit Related to Private Placement
DORAL FINANCIAL: Seeks to Junk Consolidated Stock Suit in N.Y.

DYNAMEX INC: Continues to Face Calif. Drivers' Overtime Lawsuit
ESCALA GROUP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Cases in N.Y.
FIJI: Legal Aid to File Court Case Over Inhumane Jail Conditions
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces New Fla. Suit Over Faulty Refrigerators
GUIDANT CORP: Seeks to Dismiss Ind. Securities Fraud Lawsuit

INTELLIGROUP INC: N.J. Court Mulls Stock Suit Dismissal Motion
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Group Plans Protest, Suit Over Tire Burn
KVH INDUSTRIES: Opposes Motion to Certify R.I. Securities Suit
LIFE PARTNERS: Discovery Ensues in Tex. Breach of Contract Suit
MAINE: Court Master OKs Mental Health Services' Compliance Plan

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Faces Back-Dated Stock Option Grants Suit
MASSACHUSETTS: Agency, Doctors Faces Lawsuit Over Cold War Tests
METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Face Wash. Securities Suit
MOTOROLA INC: Calif. Man Files Ill. Suit Over Bluetooth Headsets
NORTH CAROLINA: Court Upholds Class Status of Bond Interest Suit

NORTHERN MARIANAS: USPS Returns 337 Checks for $5M Settlement
POSSIS MEDICAL: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.
S&M NUTEC: Greenies Dog Treats Get Makeover Amidst Litigation
SALTON INC: Still Faces N.Y. Injury Litigation Over Teakettles
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces $5.87M Lawsuit Over "Acamol" Drug

UNION PACIFIC: NTSB Fingers Train Crew for Texarkana Derailment
UNITED STATES: FEMA Sets Up Hotline for Disabled as Part of Deal
VIRGIN ISLANDS: District Judge to Rule on "Nadine Jones" Case
WORKSTREAM INC: Anticipates 2007 Trial for N.Y. Securities Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

LEGG MASON: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
LEGG MASON: Schatz & Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Hulett Harper Files Stock Suit in Calif.


                            *********


ABLE LABORATORIES: Files Motion to Dismiss N.J. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An investor sued Able Laboratories, Inc. claiming that the
pharmaceutical company issued materially false and misleading
statements to the investing public.

The class action was filed on June 10, 2005 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey and seeks damages for
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors
who purchased company common stock from Oct. 31, 2002 through
and including May 18, 2005.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.

On May 19, 2005, Able announced that the company had identified
apparent departures from standard operating procedures with
respect to certain laboratory testing practices and that, as a
result, shipment of all of its products had been suspended.  

According to Able, this conclusion was based on the
recommendation of an outside consulting firm that had been hired
by the company following several product recalls to scrutinize
company's compliance with standard operating procedures and all
relevant U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations.  

Hours later, the company announced the immediate resignation of
company's chief executive officer and withdrew its previous
earnings guidance.

On this news, shares of company's common stock plummeted from
$24.63, on May 18, 2005, to $6.26 on May 19, 2005, a drop of
$18.37, or 74.5%.

On July 22, 2005, competing motions for the consolidation of
related cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were filed with the court.  

On Jan. 23, 2006, the court held a hearing on these motions and
on Jan. 25, 2006 issued an order consolidating all related cases
into one class action lawsuit entitled, "In re Able Laboratories
Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 05-2681 (JAG)."

On March 17, 2006, Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr. signed an order
appointing lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel and on April 6,
2006 issued his opinion.

On June 19, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated class
action complaint, amending the class period above to include all
purchasers of company common stock from Oct. 30, 2002 through
and including May 18, 2005.  

Defendants filed their motions to dismiss this complaint on
Sept. 12, 2006.  Lead plaintiffs have until Oct. 27, 2006 to
file their opposition defendants motions.

The suit is "In re Able Laboratories Securities Litigation, C.A.
No. 05-2681 (JAG), Case No. 05-2681 (JAG)," filed U. S. District
Court, District of New Jersey under Judge Joseph A. Greenway,
Jr.  Case Contact: Abigail R. Romeo, Phone: 800-516-9926.


BIO-TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Face N.J. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bio-Technology General Corp. remains a defendant in a
consolidated securities fraud suit filed against the company in
2003 in U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey.

On Feb. 19, 2003, an investor sued Bio-Technology General (n/k/a
Savient Pharmaceuticals Inc.) and certain top executives,
accusing the biopharmaceutical company of issuing false and
misleading financial statements to the public.

Plaintiffs seek damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who purchased the securities of
the company from April 19, 1999 to August 2, 2002.

The lawsuit claims that the company defrauded investors by
releasing false and misleading financial statements about its
revenue and earnings, causing the company's stock to reach an
artificially high price.

On Aug. 2, 2002, the company announced that it would have to
revise and restate its prior financial results for 1999, 2000,
2001 and the first quarter of 2002.  

According to the complaint, the company violated Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission rules, improperly accounting for:

     -- development and startup costs associated with a new
        drug;

     -- compensation charges resulting from stock option awards
        to certain employees and former employees; and

     -- revenue from a 1999 product sale in which significant
        uncertainties about the realization of the invoiced
        amount arose.

Motions for the consolidation of all related cases and for the
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with
the court on March 11, 2003.  

On Sept. 5, 2003, the court issued an order consolidating all
related cases into one class action lawsuit, "In re Bio-
Technology General Corp. Securities Litigation" and appointing
lead plaintiffs and their selection of co-lead counsel.  

Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on March 19, 2004, which defendants moved to dismiss
on July 9, 2004.  Lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to
defendants' motion on Oct. 14, 2004.

On Aug. 10, 2005, Judge Harold A. Ackerman signed an opinion and
order granting defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice
and granting lead plaintiffs leave to file a second amended
class action complaint.

On Oct. 11, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated class action complaint.  On Dec. 13, 2005
defendants submitted their motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint.  Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to
defendants' motion on Feb. 15, 2006.

The suit is "In re Bio-Technology General Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 02cv6048," filed in U.S. District Court,
District of New Jersey under Judge Harold A. Ackerman.  Case
Contact: C. Oliver Burt, III, Phone: 800-349-4612.


CRACKER BARREL: Could Face Another Racial Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Civil Rights activist Al Sharpton and Rose Rock, the mother of
comedian Chris Rock, will file a lawsuit seeking class-action
status against the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain over
discrimination, the AP WorldStream reports.

The action stems from an April 2006 incident at Cracker Barrel
chain's Murrells Inlet restaurant.  According to Ms. Rock, she
and her daughter were refused service and complaints to the
restaurant management were not acted on.

Ms. Rock said she asked the manager about the delay and was told
she and her daughter could have a free meal, which "neither of
us wanted to eat."  She adds that the manager never called over
the waitresses and asked: "why did these people sit here for an
hour without service?"

Julie Davis, a spokeswoman for the Lebanon, Tennessee-based firm
said the restaurant was investigating the incident.  She
reiterates though that the company does not tolerate any form of
discrimination.  She adds that it has always been a violation of
company policies and procedures and it is neither condoned nor
allowed.

Ms. Rock said she contacted the South Carolina Human Affairs
Commission and was told her complaint would be handled, but
"nothing ever happened."

Jesse Washington, commission head, said that after initial
discussions, the complaint was finalized Aug. 7 and his agency
also was investigating.

According to Mr. Washington, his group gets thousands of charges
coming in the course of a year.  He also said that it is being
investigated and that they will be in touch with her when they
have a report.  He would not though comment on the complaint.

Cracker Barrel -- http://www.crackerbarrel.com-- started out in  
1969 in Lebanon, Tennessee.  It has more than 525 stores in more
than 40 states, and employs more than 45,000 workers.  For
fiscal year 2005, Cracker Barrel reported revenues of $2.6
billion and net income in excess of $126 million, with average
annual sales of over $3.3 million per restaurant.  Cracker
Barrel also operates more than 120 Logan's Roadhouse restaurants
in more than 15 states.


CHINA ENERGY: Faces Securities Suit Related to Private Placement
----------------------------------------------------------------
China Energy Savings Technology, Inc. is facing a class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York alleging securities law violations.

The class action was filed in May on behalf of shareholders and
seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on
behalf of all investors who acquired China Energy securities
from April 21, 2005 through and including Feb. 15, 2006.

The lawsuit claims that the company and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 78j(b) and 78t of the Commerce
and Trade Code, and SEC Rule 10b-5, Section 240.10b-5 of Title
17 of the Code of Federal Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Based in Hong Kong, China Energy develops, manufactures, and
markets energy savings products to businesses in China.

According to the complaint, the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements about the company's financial results
during the class period, some contained in Securities and
Exchange Commission filings.  

In particular, the complaint says defendants failed to disclose
that:

     -- insiders of the company were engaged in massive self-
        dealing involving the company's January 2006 private
        placement; and

     -- the company was in violation of SEC Rules regarding
        limitations on sales of restricted stock and, as a
        result of this violation, trading of the company's stock
        would be halted by Nasdaq.

In addition, the complaint accuses the defendants of falsely
stating that they had complied with the reporting requirement of
the SEC and U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and
had voluntarily complied with the reporting requirements of the
U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

On February 15, 2006, as a result of the above-mentioned
fraudulent activities, Nasdaq announced that trading in shares
of the company had been halted, the complaint said.

On June 30, 2006, competing motions for the consolidation of all
related cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were filed with the court.  Beginning July 14, 2006
further briefing was filed.  These motions are currently pending
before the court.

The first identified complaint is "Victor Reichenstein, et al.
v. China Energy Savings Technology, Inc., et al.," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA)
         One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 02109, Phone:
         617.542.8300;

     (2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

     (3) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com;

     (4) Howard G. Smith, Attorney at Law, 3070 Bristol Pike,
         Suite 112, Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847,
         Fax: (215) 638-4867;

     (5) Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, 650 Poydras St. Suite 2150,
         New Orleans, LA, 70130, Phone: (504) 455-1400, E-mail:
         lewis.kahn@kglg.com;

     (6) Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., 210 Summit
         Avenue, Montvale, NJ, 07645, Phone: 201-391-7000, Fax:
         201-307-1086, E-mail: kgg@kgglaw.com;

     (7) Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 12th
         Floor, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 212.907.0700, Fax:
         212.818.0477, E-mail: info@labaton.com;

     (8) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (9) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
         (Melville), 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville,
          NY, 11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173,

    (10) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., 34th
         Flr., New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com;

    (11) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100, Fax: 212.661.8665, E-mail:
         info@pomerantzlaw.com;

    (12) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com;

    (13) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;

    (14) Scott & Scott, LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com;

    (15) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com; and

    (16) Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor,
         New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com.


DORAL FINANCIAL: Seeks to Junk Consolidated Stock Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a consolidated securities class action filed
against Doral Financial Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the  
Southern District of New York filed motions to dismiss the
complaint.

The company and certain of its officers and directors and former
officers and directors, were named as defendants in 18 purported
class actions filed between April 20, 2005 and June 14, 2005
over allegations of federal securities laws violations.

Sixteen of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York and two were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.  

These lawsuits were brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased Doral Financial securities as early as May 15, 2000
and as late as May 26, 2005.  

They allege primarily that the defendants engaged in securities
fraud by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements during the class period, failing to disclose material
information concerning the valuation of the company's IOs, and
misleading investors as to Doral's vulnerability to interest
rate increases.  

The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has transferred
the two actions that were not initially filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to that
court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with
the actions previously filed there before Judge Richard Owen.  

On Feb. 8, 2006, Judge Owen entered an order appointing the West  
Virginia Investment Management Board as lead plaintiff and
approving the selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel.  

On June 22, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint alleging securities fraud during the period
between March 15, 2000 and Oct. 25, 2005, based on allegations
similar to those noted above, as well as based on the reversal
of certain transactions entered into by Doral Financial with
other Puerto Rico financial institutions and on weaknesses in
Doral Financial's control environment as described in the
company's amended annual report on Form 10-K/ A for 2004.  

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages including interest, costs and expenses, and
injunctive relief.   

Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the consolidated
complaint on Sept. 15, 2006.  Plaintiffs have until Oct. 30,
2006 to oppose defendants' motions.

Lerach Coughlin on the Net: http://www.lerachlaw.com/

San Juan, Puerto Rico-based Doral Financial Corp. (NYSE: DRL) --
http://www.doralfinancial.com-- is a diversified financial  
services company engaged in mortgage banking, banking (including
thrift operations), institutional securities operations and
insurance agency activities.  The company's activities are
principally conducted in Puerto Rico and in the New York City
metropolitan area.  As of December 31, 2005, Doral Financial had
consolidated assets of approximately $17.3 billion and
consolidated stockholders' equity of approximately $1.1 billion.
As of December 31, 2005, Doral Bank, FSB (Doral Bank-NY), a
federal savings bank, operated 10 branches in the New York City
metropolitan area. Doral Financial also operates an
international banking entity subsidiary that invests in assets
that generate investment income.


DYNAMEX INC: Continues to Face Calif. Drivers' Overtime Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamex, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action
filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County by
a former company driver, according to its Oct. 16, 2006 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended July 31, 2006.

Filed on April 15, 2005, the suit alleges that the company
unlawfully misclassified its California drivers as independent
contractors, rather than employees.

It asserted, as a consequence, entitlement on behalf of the
purported class claimants to overtime compensation and other
benefits under California wage and hour laws, reimbursement of
certain operating expenses, and various insurance and other
benefits and the obligation of the company to pay employer
payroll taxes under federal and state law.

Dynamex Inc. (NASDAQ: DDMX) -- http://www.dynamex.com-- is a  
provider of same-day delivery and logistics services in the U.S.
and Canada.  Through its network of branch offices, the company
provides same-day, on-demand, door-to-door delivery services
utilizing its ground couriers.  In addition to on-demand
delivery services, the company offers local and regional
distribution services, which encompass recurring, often daily,
point-to-point deliveries or multiple destination deliveries
that require intermediate handling.  It also offers outsourcing
services, fleet and facilities management services.  


ESCALA GROUP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Cases in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued an order consolidating securities fraud cases filed
against Escala Group, Inc. (f/k/a Greg Manning Auctions).

The complaint was filed in May on behalf of shareholders and
seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on
behalf of all investors who acquired Escala securities from
Sept. 5, 2003 through and including May 8, 2006.

The lawsuit claims that Escala and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 78j(b) and 78t of the
Commerce and Trade Code, and SEC Rule 10b-5, Section 240.10b-5
of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations promulgated
thereunder.

Escala is a New York City-based global collectibles merchant and
auction house network.  On Sept. 28, 2005, Escala announced that
it had changed its name from Greg Manning Auctions, Inc., to
Escala Group, Inc.  Prior to the name change, Escala traded on
the Nasdaq under the symbol GMAI.

According to the plaintiff's complaint, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements, and/or omitted
material facts necessary to make those statements not
misleading, concerning Escala's financial results throughout the
class period.  

Among other things, defendants:

     -- claimed they were achieving record results, which were
        actually achieved in part as a result of questionable
        and potentially illegal activities of the company's
        majority shareholder, Afinsa Bienes Tangibles, S.A.
        of Spain;

     -- failed to maintain adequate internal systems,
        procedures, and controls such that the company's
        officers and directors were able to allow these
        questionable and potentially illegal activities to
        continue; and

     -- did not prepare Escala's financial statements in
        accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
        Principles or SEC regulations.

On May 9, 2006, news emerged that Spanish officials had raided
the Madrid offices of Escala and its majority shareholder,
Afinsa, concerning what Spanish authorities described as a
glorified pyramid scheme.  Nine people have since been arrested
in Spain in relation to the scheme.

In reaction to this news, Escala's stock fell by approximately
85% on heavy trading over the next few days while news continued
to be released regarding the alleged pyramid scheme.

On July 10, 2006, competing motions for consolidation of related
cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel
were filed with the court.  

On August 29, 2006 a hearing on these motions was held and on
August 31, 2006 Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein signed an Order
consolidating all related actions into one class action lawsuit
entitled "In re Escala Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 06-cv-3518," and appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.  Case Contact: Abigail R. Romeo, Phone: 800-516-9926.


FIJI: Legal Aid to File Court Case Over Inhumane Jail Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Aid Commission lawyer Resina Seinikuruciri will initiate
the class action in the Fiji High Court over inhumane conditions
at the Suva jail's remand center, Fijilive.com reports.

The request stems from a High Court ruling on October 6 where
seven remand prisoners were released because of inhumane
conditions at the Suva jail's remand center.  

Thirty of the 52 remand prisoners, some facing murder charges,
have requested the commission to pursue their freedom following
the successful case by the Fiji Human Rights Commission.

Ms. Seinikuraciri expects more remand prisoners to also apply to
be set free on bail.

The Legal Aid Commission in Fiji was established on July 15,
1998, as a new regime to provide legal services to the
impoverished and disadvantaged community of Fiji.  The
Commission administers the legal aid scheme from funds derived
from the annual budgetary allocation from Government, and from
the interest earned on solicitors' trust accounts under the
Trust Accounts Act 1996.  The Legal Aid Commission implements
the Legal Aid Scheme in Fiji under the Legal Aid Act of 1996.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces New Fla. Suit Over Faulty Refrigerators
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Co. has been hit with a new class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida claiming
more refrigerators are defective, NBC News reports.

Arizona residents David and Patricia Carmichael, owners of a GE
refrigerator Model # PSS25MGNA, filed the suit, alleging a
frozen and cracked water filter results to the flooding of their
home.

Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of himself and a class and
subclasses defined as follows:

      -- all persons who purchased a GE, side-by-side
         refrigerator manufactured  since 2001

Subclass 1:
      -- all persons in Florida who purchased a GE, side-by-side
         refrigerator, manufactured since 2001.

Subclass 2:
      -- all persons in Arkansas who purchased a GE, side-by-
         side refrigerator, manufactured since 2001.

The suit asserts breach of express warranty and implied warranty
of merchantability, unjust enrichment/restitution and negligence
in connection with the defective refrigerators.  

The suit alleges that the company designed, manufactured,
marketed, advertised, warranted and/or sold to plaintiff and the
class the refrigerators.  

In conjunction with each sale, the company marketed, advertised
and warranted that each refrigerator was fit for the ordinary
purpose for which such goods were used and was free from defects
in materials and workmanship, the suit states.   

The suit further alleged that the company knew, or should have
known, that the refrigerators were defective in design, were not
fit for their ordinary and intended use, and did not perform in
accordance with the advertisements, marketing materials and
warranties disseminated by the company, nor with the reasonable
expectations of ordinary consumers.  

The suit specifically alleged that at the time of sale, the
refrigerators contained a defect that resulted in the formation
of excessive moisture, especially in the icemaker compartment,
which caused, among other things, development of iron oxide or
rust, puddling on the floor beneath the refrigerator and rust or
water running down the side of the refrigerator.   

The refrigerators' defect also created the metal shavings and
shards of plastic frequently found in the ice created in the
freezer section of the refrigerators.

In addition, the defect caused the refrigerators to suffer from
wavering temperature controls and excessive frost.  "The defect
reduces the effectiveness and performance of the Refrigerators
and renders them unable to perform the ordinary purposes for
which they are used," the suit alleged.

The suit further stated that the company knew and has admitted
that the refrigerators were defectively designed, and that it
instituted a program whereby it would, under certain
circumstances replace the refrigerators with non-defective ones.  
However, the suit asserted the replacement program was
inadequate.

According to the suit, the Company did not publicize it to all
persons who purchased the refrigerators.  In addition, the
Company stated: "GE will only replace a refrigerator under
certain limited circumstances.  And, there is no indication that
GE will reimburse consumers who have paid for repairs to their
refrigerator, nor is there any indication that GE will reimburse
consumers who have paid to replace their defective refrigerator"
the suit states.

Under the suit, GE must:   

      -- reimburse owners for moisture-related service calls;

      -- give owners an additional year of warranty protection   
         from the time the court gives the settlement a   
         preliminary approval, possibly in January;  

      -- or replace refrigerators that have required three   
         unsuccessful repair attempts.

Questions of law and fact common to the class and subclasses
exist to all members of the class and subclasses and
predominated over any questions affecting only individual
members of the class and subclasses include:

     -- whether the refrigerators are defective;
     -- whether the refrigerators have not or will not perform
        in accordance with the reasonable expectations of
        ordinary consumers;
     -- whether GE knew or should have known of the defect;
     -- whether GE concealed from consumers and/or failed to
        disclose to consumers the defect;
     -- whether GE breached express warranties;
     -- whether GE breached implied warranties of
        merchantability;
     -- whether GE misrepresented the characteristics and
        qualities of the refrigerators;
     -- whether GE knew or should have known that the
        refrigerators could cause property damage to consumers'
        homes, and whether GE failed to disclose that risk of
        property damage;
     -- whether plaintiffs and the members of the class and
        subclasses are entitled to compensatory damages,
        including, among other things:
   
        (i) compensation for all out-of-pocket monies expended
            by members of the class and subclasses for: repair
            attempts and loss of use the refrigerators and
            replacement of the refrigerators; loss of food;
            property damage to their homes;
       (ii) the failure of consideration in connection with
            and/or difference in value arising out of the
            variance between the refrigerators a warranted and
            the refrigerators containing the defect; and
      (iii) the diminution of resale value of the refrigerators
            resulting from the defect.

     -- whether plaintiffs and the members of the class and
        subclasses are entitled to replacement of their
        defective refrigerators with non-defective GE
        refrigerators;
     -- whether plaintiffs and the members of the class and
        subclasses are entitled to repair of their defective
        refrigerators;
     -- whether plaintiffs and the members of the class and
        subclasses are entitled to restitution and/or
        disgorgement.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

                 http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1399

The suit is "Kitchener et al v. General Electric Co., Case No.
2:06-cv-00553-JES-SPC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida under Judge John E. Steele, with
referral to Judge Sheri Polster Chappell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Alexander E. Barnett of The Mason Law Firm, P.C., One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 4632, 144 West 72nd St., #3D
         New York, NY 10119, Phone: 202-408-4600, E-mail:
         abarnett@masonlawdc.com or Gary E. Mason of The Mason
         Law Firm, P.C., 1225 19th St., N.W., Suite 500,
         Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 202-429-2290, Fax:
         202-429-2294, E-mail: gmason@masonlawdc.com;

     (2) Bruce Mulkey of The Mulkey Attorneys Group, P.A., 1039
         W. Walnut, Suite 3, Rogers, AR 72756, Phone: 479-631-
         0481; and

     (3) Scott Wm. Weinstein of Weinstein, Bavly & Moon, PA,
         Suite 303, 2400 First St., Ft. Myers, FL 33901, Phone:
         239-334-8844, Fax: 239-334-1289, E-mail:
         scott@weinsteinlawfirm.com.


GUIDANT CORP: Seeks to Dismiss Ind. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a corrected consolidated securities complaint
filed against Guidant Corp. in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana filed a motion to dismiss the case,
according to an update posted by at the Web site of Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.

On Nov. 18, 2005 an investor sued Guidant Corporation in federal
court accusing the medical device maker of issuing materially
false and misleading statements to the public.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana and seeks damages for violations of
federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased
Guidant common stock between Dec. 15, 2004 and Nov. 3, 2005,
inclusive.  The class period was amended with the filing of lead
plaintiffs' consolidated complaints.

The lawsuit claims that Guidant and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 78j(b) and 78t of the
U.S. Commerce and Trade Code, and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.10b-5 of the Code of Federal Regulations on
Commodity and Securities Exchange.

According to the complaint, on Dec. 15, 2004, Johnson & Johnson
agreed to acquire Guidant for an astounding $25.4 billion,
citing Guidant's strong automatic implantable cardioverter
defibrillators (ICD) business as a key component of the
acquisition.  

All the while, defendants knowingly or recklessly withheld
information from investors concerning the serious and life-
threatening wiring and battery defects that many of its ICDs
were suffering.

Starting in June 2005, with two recalls impacting nine separate
ICD product lines and culminating in November with news of a
government investigation related to Guidant's disclosures, as
well as revelations in a complaint filed by New York's Attorney
General that defendants knew of the defects for years, Guidant
slowly leaked the truth about its defective ICDs to the public.

When the market did finally learn the full extent of defendants'
fraud on November 3, 2005, the price of Guidant's common stock
had fallen to $57.57, down more than 23% from its Class Period
high of $75.05 per share.

On Jan. 3, 2006, competing motions for the consolidation of all
related cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were filed with the court.  

On March 16, 2006, the court heard oral arguments, and on April
5, 2006, Judge Sarah Evans Baker signed an order consolidating
all related cases into one class action lawsuit as "In re
Guidant Corp. Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 1:05-cv-01658,"
and appointing lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.

On June 2, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Guidant during the period Dec. 15, 2004 through and including
Oct. 18, 2005 and names additional officers and directors of the
company as defendants.  

On June 8, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed a Corrected Consolidated
Complaint, correcting the class period to include purchasers of
the common stock of Guidant during the period Dec. 1, 2004
through and including Oct. 18, 2005.  

On Aug. 15, 2006, defendants filed their motion to dismiss this
complaint.  Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties and order
of the court, lead plaintiffs had until Oct. 13, 2006 to file
their opposition to defendants' motion.

The suit is "In re Guidant Corp. Securities Litigation, C.A. No.
1:05-cv-01658," filed in U.S. District Court, Southern District
of Indiana under Judge Sarah Evans Barker.  Case Contact: Bryan
A. Wood, Phone: 800-516-9926.


INTELLIGROUP INC: N.J. Court Mulls Stock Suit Dismissal Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on defendants' motion to dismiss a second amended
consolidated securities class action filed against Intelligroup
Inc.

On or about Oct. 12, 2004, the first of six class actions was
filed on behalf of a purported class of investors who purchased
the company's common stock, against the company and former
officers Arjun Valluripalli, Nicholas Visco, Edward Carr and
David Distel in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

In August 2005, the court consolidated the six class actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff.  Plaintiffs subsequently dropped Mr.
Distel and Mr. Carr from the shareholder class action, failing
to name either of them as a defendant in the amended
consolidated complaint filed on or about Oct. 10, 2005.   

The shareholder class action generally alleges violations of
federal securities laws, including allegations that the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's financial condition and that the
Defendants materially overstated financial results by engaging
in improper accounting practices.   

The class period proposed was May 1, 2001 through Sept. 24,  
2004.  The shareholder class action generally seeks relief in
the form of unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable
costs, expenses and legal fees.   

On Dec. 5, 2005, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.  On Feb. 10, 2006, prior to the hearing
on defendants' motions to dismiss, plaintiffs filed a second
amended consolidated complaint.   

On February 10, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated class action complaint.  On March 27, 2006,
defendants filed their motions to dismiss the complaint.  

Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants' motions on
May 11, 2006, and beginning June 9, 2006 defendants filed
further briefing in support of their motions.  The parties wait
for the court to rule on defendants' motions.

The suit is "Lydia Garcia, et al. v. Intelligroup Inc., et al.,  
Case No. 04-CV-4980," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
District of New Jersey under Judge John C. Lifland with referral  
to Judge Mark Falk.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph J. DePalma of Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas,  
         LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
         5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:
         jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com;  

     (2) Gary S. Graifman of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman,  
         Esqs., 210 Summit Avenue, Montvale, NJ 07645, Phone:
         (201) 391-7000, E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com; and


     (3) Lisa J. Rodriguez of Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards,  
         LLP, 8 Kings Highway West, Haddonfield, NJ 08033,  
         Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com.   

Representing the defendants are Dennis J. Drasco and Kevin J.  
O'Connor of Lum, Danzis, Drasco & Positan, LLC, 103 Eisenhower  
Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068-1049, Phone: (973) 403-9000, E-mail:  
ddrasco@lumlaw.com and koconnor@lumlaw.com.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Group Plans Protest, Suit Over Tire Burn
-------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental activist Joanna Colwell along with several
concerned citizens plan to organize an event wherein citizens
from throughout Vermont will be asked to sign a petition in
protest of International Paper Co.'s two-week tire burn at its
Ticonderoga, New York mill, according to John Flowers of The
Addison County Independent.

The event, "Line up to Sue IP," seeks to bring the company
before the court of public opinion over its proposed test burn,
scheduled to begin on Nov. 6.

Ms. Colwell is hoping that media footage of throngs of
protestors lining up on Middlebury's town green will put
additional pressure on the company to stop its proposed tire
burn, an event opponents believe will spew harmful toxins into
the air and across Lake Champlain into Addison County.

If the company is not swayed by public participation in the
event, Ms. Colwell said that the signatures would help fortify a
citizens' class action against it, especially if the public
suffers any ill effects from the two-week trial burn.  According
to Ms. Colwell, the threat of a citizens' suit is perhaps more
daunting to the company than other legal measures.

Meanwhile, Gov. Jim Douglas and Attorney General William Sorrell
announced recently that Vermont had filed a suit in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit asking the court to stop
the company's tire burn in order to allow for a full review by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and an opportunity for
Vermont to make its case in federal court.

The state's main argument has been that the company should
install a state-of-the-art pollution control device - called an
electrostatic precipitator - on its mill stack before conducting
its test burn of up to 72 tons of tire chips per day during the
two-week trial period.

Vermont authorities believe an electrostatic precipitator is
needed to capture the smallest, potentially toxic particles that
figure to escape the IP smokestack

International Paper officials argue that current pollution-
control devices at the plant are adequate for the test.  The
company is hoping the two-week test clears the way for it to
replace a substantial portion of its oil fuel stream with
cheaper tire-derived fuel.

However, the state's legal efforts, to date, have failed to sway
the New York Department of Conservation, the EPA and New York
state courts, which have consistently sided with IP.

Memphis, Tennessee-based International Paper Co. (NYSE: IP) --
http://www.ipaper.com-- is a global forest products, paper and  
packaging company, which is complemented by a North American
merchant distribution system, with primary markets and
manufacturing operations in the United States, Europe, South
America and Asia.  The company distributes printing, packaging,
graphic arts, maintenance and industrial products principally
through over 270 distribution branches located primarily in the
U.S.  In the U.S., as of December 31, 2005, the company operated
23 pulp, paper and packaging mills, 93 converting and packaging
plants, 25 wood products facilities and six specialty chemicals
plants.  The company's businesses segments include Printing
Papers; Industrial Packaging; Consumer Packaging; Distribution;
Forest Products, and Specialty Businesses and Other.


KVH INDUSTRIES: Opposes Motion to Certify R.I. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
KVH Industries Inc. faces a class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island against the
company and certain of its officers.

The suit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 under that
statute, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of purchasers of our
securities in the period Oct. 1, 2003 and July 2, 2004 and seeks
certain legal remedies, including compensatory damages.

The Teamsters Affiliates Pension Plan has been appointed lead
plaintiff.  This matter consolidates into one action eight
separate complaints filed between July 24, 2004 and Sept. 15,
2004.

On Jan. 14, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.  

The court denied this motion in part and granted it in part.  On
Oct. 14, 2005, the company answered the consolidated complaint
and denied liability and all allegations of wrongdoing.  

On Dec. 13, 2005, lead plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, moving the court to allow the action to proceed
as a class action on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the securities of KVH during the period Oct. 1, 2003
through July 2, 2004.  

On May 15, 2006, defendants filed their opposition to lead
plaintiff's motion.  On July 11, 2006 lead plaintiff filed
additional briefing in support of its motion.  The parties wait
for the court to rule on this motion.

The suit is "Sekuk Global, et al. v. KVH Industries, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:04-cv-00306-ML," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Rhode Island, under Judge Mary M Lisi.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Matthew F. Medeiros, Little, Medeiros, Kinder, Bulman &
         Whitney, 72 Pine St., 5th Floor, Providence, RI 02903,
         Phone: 401-272-8080 Fax: 401-521-3555; and

     (2) Barry J. Kusinitz, 155 South Main St., Suite 405,
         Providence, RI 02903, Phone: 401-831-4200, Fax: 401-
         831-7053.

Representing the company are:

     (1) John H. Henn, Kalun Lee, Brandon F. White, Foley Hoag
         LLP, 155 Seaport Boulevard, Boston, MA 02210, Phone:
         617-832-1000, Fax: 617-832-7000; and

     (2) Brooks R. Magratten, Benjamin V. White III, Vetter &
         White, Incorporated, 20 Washington Place, Providence,
         RI 02903, Phone: 401-421-3060, Fax: 401-272-6803.


LIFE PARTNERS: Discovery Ensues in Tex. Breach of Contract Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the purported class action, "Earl
Parchia, et al. v. Life Partners, Inc., Cause No. 2006-2258-4,"
which was filed against in the 170th District Court of McLennan
County, Texas.

Although the case purports to represent a class of persons
similarly situated, the court has not certified it as a class
action.

The action, file on June 9, 2006, alleges breach of contract in
connection with advising purchasers of premiums, which come due
on policies in which the escrow for premiums has been exhausted.

The case also alleges that we breached our contract with
purchasers by selecting life insurance policies insuring the
lives of individuals who were not actually terminally ill.  

The company has filed a partial motion for summary judgment and
discovery is currently ongoing, according to its Oct. 16, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Aug. 31, 2006.

Waco, Texas-based Life Partners Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: LPHI) --
http://www.lphi.com-- is engaged in facilitating viatical and  
life settlement transfers.  Life Partners is the parent company
of Life Partners, Inc. (LPI).  LPI conducts business under the
registered service mark Life Partners.  The company's revenues
are principally derived from fees for facilitating the purchase
of viatical and life settlement contracts.  A viatical
settlement is the sale of a life insurance policy by a
terminally ill person to another party.  By selling the policy,
the insured (a viator) receives an immediate cash payment to use
as he or she wishes.  The purchaser takes an ownership interest
in the policy at a discount to its face value and receives the
death benefit under the policy when the viator dies.


MAINE: Court Master OKs Mental Health Services' Compliance Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maine Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner
Brenda Harvey said that the state has began implementing a newly
approved plan to deliver mental health services, thus bringing
it closer to full compliance with a court decree, The Associated
Press reports.

The 101-page plan, which was approved on Oct. 13, 2006 by former
Maine Chief Justice Daniel Wathen, who is the court master
overseeing the state's compliance with a decree that sets
guidelines for services for the mentally ill.

The 1990 consent decree resulted from a class action that
claimed the state had failed to provide adequate care for
patients at its former mental hospital, the Augusta Mental
Health Institute, which has since been replaced by the Riverview
Psychiatric Center.

In the works since 2003, the recently approved plan, establishes
a new structure for mental health service delivery in Maine. It
focuses on community service networks, performance requirements,
flexible services and housing, and consumer councils and peer
services.

According to Commissioner Harvey, it also includes something
that's been missing in the past, "a process or checklist to make
sure the state complies with its service delivery plan."  

The commissioner though cautions that the plan does not remove
it from the consent decree, since the agency still has to
demonstrate compliance.

She also said that the plan marks the first time the state, the
attorney for plaintiffs, mental health consumers and service
providers have all agreed on a comprehensive service delivery
plan.

Asked to describe the new plan, Commissioner Harvey would only
say that it would have a lot of enhancements of things that the
agency already does.  She also described the timetable for
implementation as "aggressive."

The commissioner expressed delight at how people are so eager to
implement it.  She pointed out that there's a sense of energy
around both the plan and the opportunity to make it happen.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Faces Back-Dated Stock Option Grants Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran notes that a
lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Marvell Technology Group, Ltd.  

FTL is investigating similar claims at this time and welcomes
inquiries from investors concerning their rights and interests
in this matter.

The putative class action alleges that Marvell Technology and
certain officers and directors violated federal securities laws
related to the backdating of stock options.

Specifically, the complaint asserts that Marvell Technology
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or
misleading public statements regarding its financial results,
and that the Company omitted to disclose that it was engaging in
the backdating of stock option grants to executives and other
employees.

On July 5, 2006, the company disclosed that it had received
inquiries from the Securities and Exchange Commission and a
federal grand jury regarding past stock option grant practices.

On October 2, 2006, Marvell Technology announced that it would
be forced to restate its financial reports due to the misdating
of stock options.

The market responded sharply to this news with Marvell
Technology's share price plummeting approximately 19% from a
closing price of $20.65 per share on July 5, 2006 to a closing
price of $16.80 on October 3, 2006.

For more information, contact: Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran,
Phone: +1-877-337-1050, E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com, Website:
http://www.ftllaw.com.


MASSACHUSETTS: Agency, Doctors Faces Lawsuit Over Cold War Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts' Department of Mental Retardation (DMR) and
three doctors who are accused of condoning, if not performing,
secret radioactivity experiments on the Wrentham State School
residents during the Cold War were named as defendant in a
purported class action filed in Suffolk Superior Court, The Sun
Chronicle.

The families of two former residents of the school filed the
suit on Oct. 16, 2006.  Attorney Jeffrey Petrucelly specifically
brought it on behalf of former school resident Mary R. Barry,
and Robert Deline, whose late daughter, Rachel, was
institutionalized at the facility from 1956 until the 1990s.

The suit seeks to have both DMR and the state ordered to provide
the names and last known addresses of all participants in the
experiments, according to Mr. Petrucelly.

The experiments were conducted in the 1950s and '60s in an
attempt to find an antidote for radiation poisoning from a
nuclear explosion.

The doctors cited in the case are:
      -- Hugo Moser,
      -- Charles Pryles, and
      -- Krishna Saxena.  

Dr. Moser was the medical director at Fernald State School,
which also conducted radioactivity experiments on its residents,
all of whom were children.  Dr. Pryles was medical director of
Wrentham, while Dr. Saxena was the co-author of at least two
studies based on the experiments at Wrentham.

The suit alleges that Ms. Barry and Rachel Deline were among
Wrentham school residents administered radioactive iodine
isotopes without their knowledge.

The experiments came to light during the mid-1990s.  By that
time, state officials estimated that at least 289 residents were
experimented on from 1943 to 1973.

The residents were fed radioactive isotopes without being told
it was an experiment, the health risks involved or paid for
their participation.  Their families did not agree to let them
participate in the study.

DMR spokesman Dick Powers stated that a settlement with Ms.
Barry and Mr. Deline was possible, pointing out that in the past
the agency has acknowledged the impropriety of the studies and
reached settlements with numerous clients.  He adds that they
agency would not treat these people any differently.

For more details, contact Jeffrey Petrucelly of Petrucelly &
Nadler, P.C., One State Street, Suite 900, Boston, MA 02109,
Phone: (617) 720-1717, E-mail: Jeff@petrucellynadleresq.com, Web
site: http://www.petrucellynadleresq.com/.


METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Face Wash. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metawave Communications, Corp. remains a defendant in a
consolidated securities fraud suit filed in U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, according to an update
posted by at the Web site of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt
& Pucillo.

In a complaint filed on April 3, 2002, an investor sued Metawave
Communications on behalf of investors claiming the company
artificially inflated its stock price.

The class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington and seeks damages for violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought
Metawave common stock from April 24, 2001 through March 14,
2002.

The lawsuit alleges that the Washington-based communications
company engaged in improper accounting and issued false and
misleading financial statements to the public.  

According to the complaint, Metawave and some of its top
officers highly touted customer demand and revenues for its
Spotlight GSM line of cellular phone antenna systems throughout
the class period.

But the company's later actions showed those statements to be
false, the complaint states.  On March 14, 2002, Metawave
announced a restructuring plan that included discontinuing the
Spotlight GSM line due to lack of demand, the complaint says.  
The company took a $23 million charge against first quarter 2002
earnings as a result, according to the complaint.

Investors were further stunned, the complaint says, when
Metawave revealed it had inflated its 2001 revenue by $5 to $7
million, or 11 to 16 percent of its total annual revenue,
because of side-letters that allowed customers to return the
Spotlight GSM product at no charge.  

According to the complaint, the company admitted that
recognizing that revenue violated Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles and that Metawave would have to restate its financial
results for 2001.

The revelations prompted a 71% decline of Metawave's stock
price, which fell from a closing price of $1.10 on March 14,
2002 to $0.32 on March 15, 2002.

On May 20, 2002, motions to consolidate all related actions and
for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were
filed with the court.  

On Aug. 13, 2002 the court ordered all related cases
consolidated into one class action lawsuit, "In re Metawave
Communications Corp. Securities Litigation."  On Aug. 21, 2002
the court appointed lead plaintiffs and approved their selection
of co-lead counsel.

On Oct. 15, 2002 lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint and in response defendants filed a motion to
dismiss on Dec. 16, 2002.  

On June 20, 2003 Judge Thomas Zilly granted the motion to
dismiss against the individual defendants with leave for
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.

On Aug. 15, 2003 lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint.  On Oct. 16, 2003 defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which lead plaintiffs
opposed on Dec. 22, 2003.  

Also on December 22, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Intention to seek leave to revise their amended complaint to
provide further details in support of their allegations.  

Pursuant to a telephone conference held on Jan. 20, 2004, Judge
Zilly dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice and
granted lead plaintiffs leave to file a second amended
complaint.

Lead plaintiffs filed their second amended consolidated class
action complaint on Feb. 25, 2004.  Defendants filed motions to
dismiss this complaint on March 15, 2004, which lead plaintiffs
opposed on April 8, 2004.  Defendants filed their replies to
lead plaintiffs' opposition on April 29, 2004.  Oral arguments
on the motion to dismiss were heard on Nov. 8, 2004.

Prior to a ruling on the motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint, lead plaintiffs filed their third amended
consolidated class action complaint on Sept. 12, 2005.  

On Sept. 30, 2005 defendants filed a supplemental brief on their
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and the third
amended complaint.

The suit is "In re Metawave Communications Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 02cv625," filed in U.S. District Court,
Western District of Washington under Judge Thomas S. Zilly.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Randi D. Bandman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins (SF), 100 Pine St., Ste. 2600, San Francisco,
         CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 1-415-288-4534, E-
         mail: randib@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP,
         1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone:
         206-623-7292, E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com; and

     (3) Pamela E. Kulsrud of Kirby Mcinerney & Squire, 830 3rd
         Ave., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-317-2300, Fax: 1-
         212-751-2540, E-mail: pkulsrud@kmslaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Ronald L. Berenstain of Perkins
Coie, 1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4800, Seattle, WA 98101-3099, Phone:
206-583-8888, Fax: 583-8500, E-mail:
rberenstain@perkinscoie.com.


MOTOROLA INC: Calif. Man Files Ill. Suit Over Bluetooth Headsets
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola, Inc., faces a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, over allegations that the
company knew its wireless Bluetooth headsets could cause
"serious hearing loss" and failed to warn customer of the
potential dangers, The Crain's Chicago Business reports.

Martin Alpert, a California resident, filed the suit, which
seeks class-action status, on Oct. 16, 2006.  Representing Mr.
Alpert in the case is the Chicago law firm Segal McCambridge
Singer & Mahoney Ltd.  

Mr. Alpert states in the suit that the headsets in question,
utilize Bluetooth radio technology, which permits wireless
communication between two devices in this case a cellular phone
handset and headset that users wear on their ears.

The suit alleges that the company had "actual and constructive
knowledge" that its headsets "posed a serious risk of harm to
consumers from noise-induced hearing loss during the headsets'
normal and intended use."

It also that Mr. Alpert has "suffered injury" as a result of
Motorola's "conduct," but does not specify the nature or extent
of the injury.

Furthermore, the suit alleges that the company's headsets
produce sounds that exceed 85 decibels, and sometimes as much as
100 decibels, and the user has no way of determining the decibel
level at a given time.

According to the National Institute of Deafness and Other
Communication Disorders' Web site, "prolonged exposure" to a
noise more than 85 decibels can cause gradual hearing loss.  

The institute, part of the National Institutes of Health, lists
"heavy traffic" as an example of something that generates about
85 decibels of noise.

Additionally, the suit claims that in seven pages of safety
information that accompany the phone, the company does not
mention the decibel level associated with the device or the
potential for noise-induced hearing loss.  

It also claims that the company made "false representations,
omissions and concealments" in it's packaging by not
highlighting the hazard.

The headsets, according to the suit, can also be used with
phones that play music, putting users at greater risk for
hearing damage.

Anyone who purchased a Bluetooth headset manufactured by the
company in the last four years would be eligible to join the
suit, according to the complaint.

The suit seeks unspecified damages for the class members.  It
also seeks an injunction preventing the company from selling the
headsets without a warning to consumers about the potential to
cause hearing loss and without a mechanism for users to
determine decibel levels produced by the headset.

The suit is "Alpert v. Motorola, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
05586," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.

Representing the plaintiffs are Steven Alan Hart, Scott Wesley
Henry and Scott Jason Vold of Segal, McCambridge, Singer &
Mahoney, Ltd., One IBM Plaza, 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite
200, Chicago, IL 60611, (312) 645-7800, E-mail: shart@smsm.com,
shenry@smsm.com and svold@smsm.com.


NORTH CAROLINA: Court Upholds Class Status of Bond Interest Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that Judge Lindsay
Davis of the Rockingham County Superior Court rightly expanded a
lawsuit to include all taxpayers who had to pay state taxes on
interest from out-of-state government bonds since 2000, The
Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed back in 2004 by two Forsyth County taxpayers,
who argued that the state unlawfully treats interest income from
government bonds originating in North Carolina different from
bonds from other states.  The interest on North Carolina state
or municipal bonds isn't taxed.

In 2005, Judge Lindsay Davis agreed to expand the case to a
class action so as to cover everyone -- individuals, companies
and other entities -- that paid taxes on the interest income
from Oct. 29, 2000, until the case is resolved.  Essentially, if
the suit was successful, all entities could receive refunds on
taxes paid.

Arguing that the judge lacked jurisdiction over the case, the
decision was appealed by the Attorney General's Office, which is
representing the state's defendants.

However, in a unanimous opinion by the state appellate court, it
was pointed out that the "decision to grant or deny class
certification rests within the discretion of the trial court and
will not be overturned absent an abuse of that discretion."

Court of Appeals Judge Linda Stephens also added she could not
find that abuse.  Judges Martha Geer and Linda McGee concurred
with Judge Stephens' opinion.

According to plaintiffs' attorney Norman Smith, barring a
request by the state for the North Carolina Supreme Court to
rule on the class action group, the case will now return to the
trial court for a ruling on the lawsuit's merits.

Mr. Smith, a Greensboro attorney representing Lessie Dunn and
Erwin Cook Jr., the original two plaintiffs, projected a ruling
could come in late 2007.

Noelle Talley, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General's Office,
said that the office is reviewing the ruling, but it has not
decided whether to seek a review by the justices.

The total possible refund amount is unclear.  A 2004 legislative
report by the Justice Department set the potential loss of up to
$150 million. But, Mr. Smith said the payments likely would
total tens of millions of dollars.

For more details, contact Norman B. Smith of Smith, James,
Rowlett & Cohen, L.L.P., 101 South Elm Street, Suite 310, P.O.
Box 990, Greensboro, NC 27402, Phone: (336) 274-2992, Fax: (336)
274-8490.


NORTHERN MARIANAS: USPS Returns 337 Checks for $5M Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Former Superior Judge Timothy H. Bellas, chairman of the Garment
Oversight Board, said the U.S. Postal Service returned about 337
checks that are part of the over $5 million being sent to 29,700
workers in connection with the settlement of the class action
against the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands' (CNMI)
garment factories, the Saipan Tribune reports.

"They [claims administrator Gilardi & Co. LLC] sent the checks
to these people.  They just put the names there, and they just
put Saipan MP. No P.O. Box, no nothing, so the post office
stamped them insufficient address," Mr. Bellas said.

He also disclosed that a lawyer from a garment factory contacted
him, saying the factory also received a bunch of checks for the
workers who have long since left the Commonwealth.

He added that he is going to send back these checks to Gilardi
and Co. in California.  He also advised the people who have
claims or have questions to contact directly with Lisa Poncia of
Gilardi at 800-496-8306 or at her email address at
SaipanSettlement@Gilardi.com.

At a status conference on Sept. 29 in federal court, lawyer
Pamela Parker told the U.S. District Court of the Northern
Mariana Islands that a total of over $5 million in checks have
been mailed to about 29,700 workers for the settlement of the
class action against the Commonwealth's garment factories
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 4, 2006).

Mr. Bellas, Garment Oversight chairman, underscored the need for
the board to be notified about the checks when the 120 days
expire so that they could monitor the money.  

He pointed out that he asked for the Garment Oversight to be
notified upon the expiration of 120 days because, under the
settlement agreement, any money that can't be given out to the
workers will go to the Garment Oversight.  

He said that, when the money goes to the GOB, the board has the
option to either send another payment out to the same people who
responded or use it for additional monitoring purposes.

Under the $20-million settlement, some $4 million would go to
the GOB's monitoring program.  Out of $4 million, GOB was
initially supposed to get $400,000 or 10 percent for the
repatriation fund.  

Instead, the Garment Oversight got over $350,000 because they
did not get the full money that they were supposed to get in the
beginning since two garment factories did not contribute into
the settlement funds.  

The board was created pursuant to the settlement to oversee the
monitoring program of the garment industry.  

In 1999, New York law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
filed the suit in the U.S. District Court of the Northern
Mariana Islands, on behalf of some garment workers who were
allegedly made to work in sweatshop conditions (Class Action
Reporter, May 29, 2006).  

A settlement reached five years after, provides an award close
to $20 million.  The money is to be distributed as:   

  Payment to workers                            $5.8 million   
  Claims administrator of the distribution fund $500,000   
  Repatriation fund for garment workers         $400,000   
  Monitoring fund                               $4 million   
  Milberg Trust fund                            $565,254.80   
  Plaintiffs lawyer                             $8.75 million  

For more details, contact:

     (1) Pamela M. Parker of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway Suite 1900, San Diego,
         CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, Fax: (619) 231-7423;
         and

     (2) Steven P. Pixley, 2nd Floor, CIC Centre, Beach Rd.,
         Garapan, P.O. Box 7757 SVRB, Saipan, MP 96950, Phone:
         (670) 233-2898/5175, Fax: (670) 233-4716, E-mail:
         sppixley@aol.com.


POSSIS MEDICAL: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Possis Medical, Inc. remains a defendant in a shareholder class
action filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on June 3, 2005, alleging that the company and named
individual officers violated federal securities laws during a
period beginning 2002.

The suit seeks class action status and unspecified damages.  The
company believes that the allegations of the lawsuit are without
merit and are contesting the lawsuit vigorously, according to
its Oct. 16, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 1, 2006.

The suit is "Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust, The v. Possis
Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:05-cv-01084-JMR-FLN," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under
Judge James M. Rosenbaum with referral to Judge Franklin L.
Noel.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. of Reinhardt Wendorf &
         Blanchfield, 332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250, St Paul,
         MN 55101, Phone: 651-287-2100, E-mail:
         g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com;

     (2) Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, PC, 20 Church St.,
         Ste. 1700, Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-241-6116, E-
         mail: nkulesa@snlaw.net; and

     (3) Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY
         10119-0165, Phone: 212-946-4474, E-mail:
         arado@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendants are Michelle S. Grant, Bryan C.
Keane, James K. Langdon and Roger J. Magnuson of Dorsey &
Whitney, LLP, 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-
1498, Phone: 612-340-5671 and 612-340-2600, Fax: 612-340-2807
and 612-340-8800, E-mail: grant.michelle@dorsey.com,
keane.bryan@dorsey.com, langdon.jim@dorsey.com and
magnuson.roger@dorsey.com.


S&M NUTEC: Greenies Dog Treats Get Makeover Amidst Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&M NuTec officials said they had been working on a new formula
for their dog treat Greenies Dog Chews, in a move to reshape and
reformulate the treat, even before the series of lawsuits and
media reports claiming the treat sometimes sickened or killed
dogs, Sharewatch reports.

According to Kristy Vetter, consumer care strategy coordinator
for S&M NuTec, "We know there are perception issues out there
about the original Greenies."  She adds though that the revamp
on the product will give pet owners confidence about what
they're giving their dogs and help their dogs maintain happy,
healthy lives.

Greenies are hard, dark green treats shaped like a bone on one
end and a toothbrush on the other.  The company claims the
treats help scrub the dog's teeth, preventing periodontal
disease and freshening the animal's breath.

In 2005, the popular dog treat sold under the name "Greenies"
became the subject of a lawsuit filed with the Supreme Court of
the State of New York.

The complaint contends that the product, manufactured by S&M
NuTec, is unsafe, inadequately labeled, and ultimately caused
the death of the plaintiff's 4-year old dog, named Burt.

S&M NuTec, then, made claims that Greenies are "highly
digestible," and the product comes with packaging statements
such as "100% edible" and "veterinarian approved!"

Given these claims, the plaintiffs were stunned by the cause of
death of their family member Burt, a rescued Miniature
Dachshund.  Burt died after an undigested portion of a Greenies
dog treat became lodged in his intestinal tract.

In 2006, a group of 10 pet owners from eight states filed a
similar suit against the company, accusing the company of
knowing the dangers of Greenies, but refused to adequately warn
consumers or recall the product (Class Action Reporter, April
13, 2006).

The complaint was filed on behalf of a nationwide class of
consumers who purchased Greenies(r) dog treats, "the original
green smart treat(r)" ("Greenies" or "Greenies dog treat"), and
the general public.  

It alleges that NuTec has been marketing, advertising and
selling Greenies since 1998 and that Greenies are "100% edible
and highly digestible."

Plaintiff claims that the consumption of Greenies by dogs has
not only been responsible for severe esophageal and/or
intestinal problems, it has also led to the death of numerous
dogs.  

In fact, the complaint alleges that pieces of Greenies have
become lodged in dogs' esophagi and intestines, creating
obstructions and causing serious medical problems.

The complaint also alleges that the company was well aware of
the types of problems caused by Greenies, but that it did not
take any affirmative action to warn consumers of the potential
for these types of problems.

But Ms. Vetter said the new treats have a chewier texture and
"break points" built in to help dogs crunch the treats into
smaller, easier-to-swallow pieces. The ingredients have also
been changed to break down more quickly in the stomach.

Ms. Vetter added that the reformulated Greenies are already on
shelves in mass retailers such as PetsMart and Petco and should
begin appearing in veterinarians' offices and independent pet
suppliers by early November.

S&M NuTec, a wholly owned subsidiary of Mars, Inc. since May,
also plans a major marketing push to encourage pet owners to get
their dogs' teeth checked and cleaned regularly.

Plaintiffs' attorney, Alan Sash, said he was pleased the company
was changing the formula.  He doubts though that the revamp was
a coincidence, considering the timing of the change and the fact
that he and his clients asked for a change as part of their
class action.

For more details, contact Alan E. Sash of McLaughlin & Stern,
LLP, 260 Madison Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, New York 10016,
Phone: 212-448-1100, Fax: 212-448-0066, Web site:
http://www.mclaughlinstern.com/.


SALTON INC: Still Faces N.Y. Injury Litigation Over Teakettles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Salton, Inc. remains a defendant in a lawsuit filed in New York
State Supreme Court seeking damages for claims that plaintiffs
were injured by water contaminated with lead from teakettles the
company sold under its Russell Hobbs brand.

The suit, "DiNatale v. Salton, Inc.," filed on or about Oct. 27,
2004, seeks unspecified damages.  The plaintiffs' attorney was
asking to convert the lawsuit into a class action, but no class
action has been filed, according to the company's 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended April 1, 2006.

The manufacturer of the product and its insurer are defending
this lawsuit.  The company's attorneys and its insurers are
cooperating in the defense of the lawsuit, according to its Oct.
16, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended July 1, 2006.

Lake Forest, Illinois-based Salton, Inc. (NYSE: SFP) --
http://www.saltoninc.com-- is a designer, marketer and  
distributor of branded small appliances, home decor and personal
care products. The Company's product mix includes a range of
small kitchen and home appliances, electronics for the home,
tabletop products, time products, lighting products, picture
frames, and personal care and wellness products.  Its product
divisions include Small Appliances and Electronics for the home,
Home Decor, and Personal Care and Wellness.  Salton sells its
products under brand names, such as Salton, George Foreman,
Westinghouse, Toastmaster, Melitta, Russell Hobbs, Farberware,
Ingraham and Stiffel.  The company markets and sells its
products in North America, South Africa, Europe, Asia,
Australia, New Zealand, South America and the Middle East.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces $5.87M Lawsuit Over "Acamol" Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is facing a $5.87 million
class action in the Tel Aviv District Court, the Israel National
News reports.

According to court documents, Teva raised the price of a bottle
of the popular analgesic "Acamol" by 34 percent while reducing
the contents from 100 ml to 60 ml.

The lawsuit charged that the company did not inform consumers of
the change in volume contained in the bottle.

Through its U.S. subsidiary, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.
makes generic versions of brand-name antibiotics, heart drugs,
heartburn medications, and other medicines.  The company is
based in Petach Tikva, Israel.


UNION PACIFIC: NTSB Fingers Train Crew for Texarkana Derailment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reported that
the crew of a Union Pacific Railroad freight train was
inattentive and is to blame for a deadly train collision,
derailment, and subsequent explosions in Texarkana one year ago,
The KTBS News reports.

In the report, the NTSB referred to more than one instance where
the train crew did not respond, as they should.  They outlined
what led to the accident, as well as the response to the
explosion and fire.  Officials also made recommendations on
improvements to make.

Specifically, in a live "webcast" from Washington, D.C., NTSB
noted "the failure of the crew to remain attentive and alert and
thereby stop before striking an observable standing train in
front of them."

NTSB investigators pointed out that that an illuminated "end of
train" device hanging on the rear car of the stopped train could
be seen 3,200 feet from the moving train that crashed into it.

In addition, NTSB also said that after the explosion, the
yardmaster failed to call 911.  It was noted in the NTSB report
that "the 911 dispatcher called and spoke with the yardmaster
eight minutes after the 911 dispatch center began receiving
reports about chemical odors."

Investigators said some improvements need to be made in the
emergency response notification, communication and coordination,
but overall the results were positive in the emergency response.

Already, improvements have already been made in the emergency
response plan in Texarkana, according to officials.  Among them
was a train derailment response exercise.  The Arkansas side of
Texarkana now has statewide communication capabilities on their
radio system.

One person was killed and hundreds of people were forced from
their homes after the explosion.  A class action by residents is
pending against Union Pacific.  Attorney R. Gary Nutter brought
that lawsuit on behalf of the residents.

At about 5 a.m. on October 15, 2005, Sunday, a Union Pacific
train coming from Chicago struck the back of another Union
Pacific train coming from Pine Bluff in a rail yard on the south
side of Texarkana.  Eight cars derailed, and a tanker car
containing propylene exploded and fire broke out (Class Action
Reporter, Oct 21, 2005).

Fearing more explosions and a toxic cloud, officials evacuated
residences and nursing homes in the area and prepared to move up
to 1,500 nearby jail inmates.  

Police said the home of Pearlie Mae Marshall, 61, was destroyed
and Ms. Marshall died in the accident.  In addition, 12 people
complained of respiratory problems.  

Residents were allowed to return home late Saturday.  The fire
from the tank car burned itself out by 1:30 a.m. Sunday, UP has
said.

Though federal and local investigators have not speculated about
what caused the derailment, Mr. Nutter told The Associated Press
that his office learned "from word of mouth" over the last four
days that the train engineer fell asleep.

The suit, which seeks class action status, was filed in Miller
County Circuit Court on behalf of residents Troy H. Bradford and
Gloria Bradford and their business Books Etc.  

The suit charges the Omaha, Nebraska-based company of
negligence, trespass, and causing a nuisance "in allowing toxic
and hazardous chemicals" into the community.  

The suit seeks an order requiring the company to clean up any
damage and pay unspecified monetary compensation for personal
injuries, evacuation and cleanup costs, property loss, and lost
income resulting from the derailment.

In November, Union Pacific filed a petition seeking to move the
case from Miller County to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas.  The petition states that the case
should be tried in federal court due to the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005, and due to the amount of money, which may
eventually be involved in the suit (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
3, 2005).  

That petition was later granted.  In December, some residents
asked a federal judge to send back the lawsuit to Miller County
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 9, 2005).

The suit is "Bradford et al v. Union Pacific Railroad Company,
Case No. 4:05-cv-04075-HFB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas under Judge Harry F.
Barnes.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) R. Gary Nutter of Dunn, Nutter & Morgan, L.L.P., State
         Line Plaza, Box 8030, Suite Six, Texarkana, AR 71854-
         5945, Phone: (870) 773-5651, Fax: (870) 772-2037, E-
         mail: rgnutter@dnmlawfirm.com; and

     (2) Matthew David Karnas of Bellovin Karnas, P.C., 100 N.
         Stone Ave., Suite 1105, Tucson, AZ 85701, Phone: 520-
         571-9700, Fax: 520-571-8556, E-mail:
         Karnas@Bellovinkarnas.com.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) William H. Howard, III of Baker, Donelson, Bearman,
         Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite
         3600, New Orleans, LA 70170, US, Phone: 504-566-5275,
         Fax: 504-636-3975, E-mail: bhoward@bakerdonelson.com;
         and

    (ii) George L. McWilliams of Patton, Roberts, McWilliams &  
         Capshaw, LLP, 2900 Saint Michael Drive, Suite 400,
         Texarkana, TX 75503, Phone: (903) 334-7107, Fax: (903)
         334-7007, E-mail: gmcwilliams@pattonroberts.com.


UNITED STATES: FEMA Sets Up Hotline for Disabled as Part of Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has set up a hot line
for handicapped people who have had problems with trailers
provided by the federal agency, according to Tom Wilemon of The
Sun Herald.

The number to call is 1-888-294-2820 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.
Monday through Saturday.  The federal agency began providing the
hot line last week under terms of a court-approved settlement
that was the result of a federal lawsuit filed by handicapped.

The suit is "Brou et al. v. Federal Emergency Management Agency
et al.," it was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.

According to the National Center for Law and Economic Justice
(NCLEJ), about 25 percent of Hurricane Katrina evacuees have
disabilities, but at the time the suit was filed only 1 to 2
percent were provided with accessible trailers.

Claire Brou of Ocean Springs, a disabled U.S. Air Force captain,
was the first plaintiff listed in the class action.  Other
disabled South Mississippi residents who sued the federal agency
were Eugene Joseph Johnson of Bay St. Louis and Terry West of
Kiln.

NCLEJ and other advocacy groups, including the Mississippi
Justice Center, provided lawyers for the disabled individuals
that sued.

                        Case Background

The class consists of all individuals who (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 9, 2006):

     -- as of Aug. 29, 2005, resided in Louisiana or  
        Mississippi in areas declared to be Federal Disaster  
        Areas as a result of Hurricane Katrina; or as of  
        Sept. 24, 2005, resided in Louisiana in areas  
        declared to be Federal Disaster Areas as a result of  
        Hurricane Rita;  

     -- were displaced from their pre-disaster primary residence  
        or whose pre-disaster primary residences have been  
        rendered uninhabitable as a result of damage caused by  
        Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita;  

     -- are in receipt of, or who qualify or will qualify for,  
        direct assistance pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section  
        5174(c)(1)(B); and  

     -- are persons with disabilities and have informed or will  
        inform defendants of their need for a unit that  
        accommodates their disabilities, but who have not  
        received a unit with the requested accessibility  
        features."

The settlement provides that FEMA will:
      
     -- mail and distribute to print media, radio stations, and  
        TV stations a notice explaining what is meant by  
        "disability," notifying class members that accessible  
        trailers and accessibility modifications are available,  
        and describing the procedures class members must follow  
        to have FEMA address any unmet accessibility needs;

     -- establish a special toll-free number for class members  
        to call and provide information to help FEMA determine  
        whether Class Members need an accessible trailer,  
        whether modifications can be made to a FEMA trailer they  
        already have to make it accessible, what type of  
        accessibility features they need; and whether they need  
        financial assistance to pay for a hotel or some other  
        type of temporary housing unit an accessible trailer can  
        be provided.  

     -- require that a minimum of 10% of all mobile homes or  
        travel trailers ordered on or after June 1, 2006 for use  
        as temporary housing for victims of Hurricane Katrina or  
        Hurricane Rita shall comply with the Uniform Federal  
        Accessibility Standards (UFAS);

     -- hire a separate contractor for the exclusive purpose of  
        providing all materials, labor, equipment and support  
        services such as required permitting and local  
        inspections for installation of UFAS compliant  
        manufactured homes and travel trailers;

     -- require that the contractor selected by FEMA use its  
        best efforts to provide accessible mobile homes or  
        travel trailers within 90 days and to make any necessary  
        modifications to make an existing trailer accessible  
        within 60 days after a Class Member contacts FEMA (30  
        days for installation of external ramps, steps, or grab   
        bars);

     -- ensure that the common areas and at least 5% of mobile  
        homes or travel trailers in group sites operated by  
        FEMA for Class Members in Louisiana or Mississippi are  
        accessible to persons with disabilities;

     -- appoint an ombudsperson to work to resolve complaints  
        and to monitor and recommend improvements to FEMA's  
        procedures for meeting the needs of people with  
        disabilities; and

     -- pay attorney's fees and costs in the amount of  
        $310,000.

On Feb. 17, 2006, individual plaintiffs Ms. Brou, Darlene
Crosby, Willie Foster, Donna Graffagnino, Carla Hagler, Angela
Breaux Hardy, Robert Thomas Harris, Eugene Johnson, Victoria
Sumrall, Terry West, and Anita Wilson, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, filed the instant lawsuit
against FEMA, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Michael
Chertoff in his official capacity as Secretary of DHS, and David
Paulison in his official capacity as Director of FEMA (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 6, 2006).

The complaint charged defendants with disability discrimination
in violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.
Section 794(a); the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3604;
and the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 5170 et seq., in FEMA's
direct temporary housing assistance program, by their alleged
delay and/or failure to provide accessible trailers, and alleged
delay and/or failure to modify trailers to make them accessible
to people with disabilities.

In support of their claims, plaintiffs argue that FEMA has
failed to provide evacuees with disabilities with meaningful
access to its programs.

Defendants deny any liability and maintain that they have
administered their programs in a lawful manner.

A copy of the Settlement Agreement is available for free at:

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1310.

The suit is "Brou et al. v. Federal Emergency Management Agency
et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00838-SRD- DEK," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge  
Stanwood R. Duval, Jr., with referral to Judge Daniel E.  
Knowles.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Melissa Losch Boudreaux of The Advocacy Center, 2704  
         Wooddale Blvd., Suite B, Baton Rouge, LA 70805, Phone:  
         225-925-8884, E-mail: mlosch@advocacyla.org; Ellen  
         Bentley Hahn of The Advocacy Center for the Elderly &  
         Disabled, 600 Jefferson St., Suite 812, Lafayette, LA  
         70501, Phone: 337-237-7380, E-mail:  
         nhahn@advocacyla.org;

     (2) Marc Cohan, Caroline LaCheen and Cary LaCheen all of  
         The Welfare Law Center, Inc., 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite  
         1506, New York, NY 10001, Phone: 212-633-6967; and

     (3) Peter Asplund and Robert Cohen both of Kirkland & Ellis  
         (New York), 153 East 53rd St., New York, NY 10022-4575.

Representing the defendants is Diane Kelleher of The Dept. of  
Justice, Federal Programs Branch (DC), P.O. Box 883, Washington,  
DC 20044, Phone: 202-514-4775, E-mail: Diane.Kelleher@usdoj.gov.


VIRGIN ISLANDS: District Judge to Rule on "Nadine Jones" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Curtis Gomez will rule today on the
Nadine Jones case, which is class action demanding that the
government offer a "free and appropriate" education for all
children with disabilities, The Virgin Islands News reports.

The Disability Rights Center of the Virgin Islands filed the
case in 1984 on behalf of parents throughout the Virgin Islands.  

The suit, which was certified as a class action, claims that
hundreds of students were being denied special education
services such as speech therapy and occupational therapy.  

It alleged that the denial violated the children's rights under
the federal Education of the Handicapped Act of 1984, a
precursor to today's Individuals With Disabilities Education
Act.  

The suit names as defendants: Governor Juan Luis, Education
Commissioner Charles Turnbull and Office of Special Education
Office Director Priscilla Stridiron.  

Today, Judge Gomez will decide whether a consent decree
formulated by Archie Jennings, the attorney who originally filed
the lawsuit, should go forward.  Under it, plaintiffs will drop
the lawsuit if the V.I. Department of Education to meet a number
of specific conditions.

Judge Gomez will hold a hearing addressing the consent decree at
11:30 a.m.

Parents then can decide whether their children fall under the
rules set by the consent decree or can opt out of participating
in it, Mr. Jennings said.


WORKSTREAM INC: Anticipates 2007 Trial for N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Workstream, Inc. expects a late 2007 trial for the securities
fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company and its chief
executive officer and its former chief financial officer.

On or about Aug. 10, 2005, a class action was filed on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of the company's common shares
during the period from January 14, 2005 to and including April
14, 2005.  

It alleges, among other things, that management provided the
market misleading guidance as to anticipated revenues for the
quarter ended Feb. 28, 2005, and failed to correct this guidance
on a timely basis.  

The action claims violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act,
and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount as well
as the award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel
and expert fees and costs.  

In December 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which added additional plaintiffs and sought to elaborate on the
allegations contained in the complaint.  

The defendant's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which was denied.  Plaintiffs have moved to confirm a class of
purchasers of the company's shares during the class period.
Briefing on that motion is expected to conclude in the fall of
2006.

Discovery remains in the early stages, and the company intends
to defend the action vigorously.  The company expects the trial
to occur in or about late 2007, according to its Oct. 16, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Aug. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Schottenfeld Qualified Associates LP et al. v.
Workstream, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:05-cv-07092-CLB," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Charles L. Brieant.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ronen Sarraf of Sarraf Gentile, LLP, 485 Seventh
         Avenue, New York, NY 10018, Phone: (212) 868-3610, Fax:
         (212) 918-7967, E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com; and
       
     (2) Ralph M. Stone of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP, 485
         Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, NY 10018, Phone:
         (212) 239-4340, Fax: (212) 239-4310, E-mail:
         rstone@lawssb.com.

Representing the defendants are David M. Doret and H. Robert
Fiebach of Cozen and O'Connor, 45 Broadway Atrium, New York, NY
10006-3792, Phone: 212-509-9400.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


LEGG MASON: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, filed a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Legg Mason, Inc.
common stock during the period between June 24, 2005 and July
24, 2006.

The complaint charges Legg Mason and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Legg Mason, founded in 1962 and based in Baltimore, Maryland, is
the fifth largest U.S.-based global asset management company.

The class period commences on 6/24/05 when Legg Mason announced
that it would swap its brokerage unit, the business upon which
the company was founded, plus $2.1 billion in stock and cash for
Citigroup Inc.'s $435 billion money-management division.

Legg Mason would also buy hedge fund firm The Permal Group, one
of the five largest funds-of-hedge-funds managers in the world,
for an initial payment of $800 million.

With these two transactions, Legg Mason would become the fifth-
biggest U.S. money-management company, with $830 billion in
assets.

Defendants stated the acquisition would be immediately accretive
to earnings as Legg Mason would realize $80 million to $115
million in cost savings.

During an investor conference call held on 6/24/05, defendants
stated that these transactions would have positive effect on the
Company's profitability and the "New Legg Mason" going forward,
including leaving Legg Mason with a "Conservative Balance
Sheet."

According to the complaint, throughout the class period,
defendants continued to paint a picture of continued growth and
success for the future.

In fact, Legg Mason's business was failing miserably, as:

      -- Legg Mason was unable to successfully integrate
         Citigroup's worldwide asset management business (CAM)
         assets because of a lack of compatible corporate
         infrastructures;

      -- the company's acquisition of the CAM assets was not the
         success defendants claimed.  Citigroup had undisclosed
         pre-existing sales expenses to a third-party brokers,
         so there was little or no possibility of achieving the
         combined (post-acquisition) projections that defendants
         claimed;

      -- post-acquisition cost "savings" were unattainable;  
    
      -- former Citigroup customers had withdrawn billions of
         dollars of assets, further driving down revenues and
         profits;

      -- the company's ability to achieve earnings growth
         (including the company's projections for fiscal 2006
         and beyond) was severely strained, due to deteriorating
         investment returns on Bill Miller's $18.7 billion Legg
         Mason Value Trust, the company's flagship equity fund
         which was having its worse year since 1990 and was
         trailing the S&P 500 for the first time in 16 years;
         and

      -- the diminishing returns on Miller's flagship fund were
         causing further margin pressure.

As a result, the company's projections for fiscal years 2006 and
2007 were grossly inflated.  Suddenly, on May 1, 2006 the
company announced it would hold an earnings conference and
release 4Q 06 financial results for the fiscal year ended
3/31/06 on 5/10/06.

News of Legg Mason's less than illustrious financial results
leaked into the market and the company's stock price fell
precipitously, declining more than $6 a share from over $118 to
$112 per share.

Thereafter, when the company actually released its 4Q 06 results
on 5/10/06, the company's stock price plunged from over $116 per
share at the close of trading on 5/9/06 to close at $101.40 on
5/12/06 - almost a $15 per share decline.

Defendants made additional false but positive statements to
support the company's stock price, including stating the cost
savings were still on their way in the 1Q 07.

However, once again, on July 25, 2006 the company's stock price
would precipitously decline below $85 per share on very high
volume when it was disclosed that the CAM acquisition costs were
spiraling and customers were withdrawing funds, putting further
pressure on revenues and margins and causing Legg Mason to miss
the earnings targets for 1Q 07 investors had been led to expect.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Legg Mason common stock during the class period.  Plaintiff
is represented by Lerach Coughlin, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

For more details, contact William Lerach, Samuel H. Rudman and
David A. Rosenfeld of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins, LLP, Phone: 800-449-4900, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com,
Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/leggmason/.


LEGG MASON: Schatz & Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. announces that a lawsuit
seeking class action status has been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of Legg Mason, Inc.
between June 24, 2005 and July 24, 2006.

Also included are those who acquired shares in a secondary
offering on 3/9/06 or through the acquisitions of Permal or
Worldwide Asset Management

The complaint alleges that on 6/24/05, Legg Mason announced that
it would swap its brokerage unit plus $2.1 billion in stock and
cash for Citigroup's $435 billion money-management division and
would buy hedge fund firm The Permal Group.

Defendants stated the acquisition would be immediately accretive
to earnings, have a positive effect on profitability and leave
Legg Mason with a "Conservative Balance Sheet."

Throughout the class period, defendants failed to disclose the
following:

      -- Legg Mason was unable to successfully integrate
         Citigroup's worldwide asset management business (CAM)
         assets because of a lack of compatible corporate
         infrastructures;

      -- Citigroup had undisclosed pre-existing sales expenses
         to third-party brokers;

      -- post-acquisition cost "savings" were unattainable;

      -- Citigroup customers had withdrawn billions of dollars           
         of assets; and

      -- the company's ability to achieve earnings growth was
         severely strained, due to deteriorating investment
         returns on Bill Miller's $18.7 billion Legg Mason Value
         Trust, the company's flagship equity fund, which was
         having its worse year since 1990.

On July 25, 2006 the company disclosed that the CAM acquisition
costs were spiraling and customers were withdrawing funds,
putting further pressure on revenues and margins and causing
Legg Mason to miss the earnings targets for 1Q 07.  On this
news, stock price fell below $85 per share.

All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with
the court by Dec. 15, 2006.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton and Nancy A. Kulesa
of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.
         

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Hulett Harper Files Stock Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hulett Harper Stewart, LLP, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock and other securities of
Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. who purchased during the period
from Oct. 3, 2001 through Oct. 3, 2006.

The complaint alleges that Marvell and certain of its officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws by making
false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the
backdating of the grant of stock options to management.

The company has now said that its financial statements from June
of 2000 to the present cannot be relied upon, and that it will
be restating financial results.

The practice of manipulating stock option dates not only
potentially lines the pockets of the executives, but here
resulted in the overstatement of Marvell's earnings during the
class period, and the under-booking of compensation expenses.
Under accounting rules, back-dating an option grant is deemed
the payment of additional compensation and must be accounted for
as an expense, which Marvell failed to do.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the defendants announced that the company would
be forced to restate its financial statements to correct for the
backdating of stock options.  

From the time that assertions were first made in the press that
Marvell's options practices might be questionable to the date of
this announcement, Marvell stock sank from over $28 per share to
roughly $16 per share.

All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with
the court by Dec. 5, 2006.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect
to this matter, please contact Blake M. Harper at the number or
email listed above. Mr. Harper will personally speak with you at
no cost or obligation.

For more details, contact Blake M. Harper, Esq. of Hulett Harper
Stewart, LLP, Phone: +1-619-338-1133, E-mail:
office@hulettharper.com.


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2006.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *